Floods strip Midwest of tons of valuable topsoil

Missouri, for example, has nearly halved its rate of soil loss since the mid-1980s, when it dedicated a special tax that generates $42 million a year for soil-conserving practices such as terraces, retention ponds and grazing rotations. The conversion of row-crop land to pastures over the last twenty years in northern Missouri also has helped conserve the precious few inches of top soil left in that part of the state, said Bill Foster, who heads the state’s soil and water conservation program. “If we lose very many more inches of soil, we won’t be farming,” Foster said. “It’s critical to keep in place.” The Farm Service Agency’s Conservation Reserve Program also helps. The $2 billion-a-year federal program pays farmers not to plant crops, instead returning land to its native state. That saves an estimated 450 million tons of soil each year. This program, however, is not without controversy. Environmental groups recently sought a federal court injunction to stop hay production and cattle grazing on some conservation land. A judge in Seattle ruled that the USDA did not conduct an appropriate environmental review, but said a reversal would be unfair to farmers and ranchers counting on using that land.

Conservation program officials announced earlier this month that farmers in flooded-damaged areas of 16 states could graze livestock on conservation land to help them cope with rising grain prices and flood damage. “Our CRP land is vital to the balance we promote at USDA between production and preservation,” Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer said. “I commit this resource knowing that we must redouble our conservation effort at every future opportunity.” One of the program’s founders, Senator Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) wants to also allow farmers to plant crops on more stable conservation land. Environmental groups say there are risks to opening up conservation program land to planting. Marginal land planted with ground cover or trees acts as a natural flood barrier, said Sara Hopper, director of agricultural policy for the Environmental Defense Fund. Planting crops could mean less protection against floods, she said. “It’s going to make a bad situation worse, particularly over the long run,” she said.

Lankford, the Indiana farmer, faces a difficult decision for his flood-damaged land. He could replant corn in an effort to make money off the field, but that would take cash to rebuild a breached levee and haul hundreds of truck loads of topsoil to replace his lost land. He could also consider the conservation reserve program, or he could simply abandon the affected field. Another big flood could come again next year, he said, or not for another hundred years. “Traditionally, farmers are optimists, and I know I’m that way. They always think ‘Well, next year will be better,’” Lankford said. “You know there’s risks. Sometimes it’s worse than you think.”